On 26.07.2010 11:29, Robert Collins wrote: > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Abel Deuring > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 1. I don't know why we raised errors for non-silenced warnings. In >> general, we should aim to get rid of all warnings in our code/tests. I >> would even consider the warnings introduced by my branch to be errors -- >> the point is that they occur far too often to be fixed in a single >> branch, so I opted instead to annoy everbody who looks at the output of >> affected tests ;) > > For future reference, see the patch James W put together to attach > oopses to tests; a similar approach would have let you gather all the > items without them showing up : we could then ratchet it down as a > form of lint without having the UI exploding in our faces. > > Separately, I'm a little concerned we may spend a lot of time churning > between users to setup things now - and that that will have > performance implications for the test suite.
well, if this is a concern, simply calling removeSecurityProxy() should be fine in a setUp() method -- provided that the need to do that does not indicate a permission problem in the "real world". Actually, I used removeSecurityProxy(obj) in LPObjectFactory.makeSomething(), if this method failed because obj is returned by LPObjectFactory.makeOther() and makeOther() now returns a proxied object. > > Lastly, and here I expose my ignorance of some subtleties in zope - I > thought security proxies only lived between view and model objects, > not between model objects? right. But many tests work like views (in the sense that login() calls are necessary), so LPObjectFactory should provide them with proxied objects. (Or did I miss your point?) Abel _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
